Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-06-18 PC Packet AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,June 18, 2013 7:00PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a.June 4,2013 5.Public Hearings 6.New Business a.7:00 p.m. or later: Conditional Use Permit Revision, Termination of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Rezoningfrom PUD to F (farm residential) for the Harmony Learning Center Planned Unit Development, 1961County Road CEast b.7:00 p.m.or later: 2014-2018 CIP (Capital Improvement Plan) Review and Debt Analysis c.Election of Chair and Vice Chair (no report) 7.Unfinished Business 8.Visitor Presentations 9.Commission Presentations a.Commission presentation for the June 10, 2013 city council meeting. Commissioner Kempe attended. The items reviewed were the conditional use permit revision for the First Evangelical Free Churchand the Resolution of Appreciation for Stephen Wensman. b.Commission representation for the June 24, 2013 city council meeting. Commissioner Fisher is scheduled to attend. There are presently no planning commission items scheduled for review. c.Commission representation for the July 8, 2013 city council meeting. Commissioner Ige is scheduled to attend. The items scheduled for review are the Harmony School CUP revision and the CIP review. 10.Staff Presentations a.Cancellation of July 2, 2013 planning commission meeting 11.Adjournment DRAFT MINUTESOF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JUNE 4,2013 1.CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Commissionwas held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order at 7:05p.m.by Chairperson Fischer. 2.ROLL CALL Paul Arbuckle, CommissionerPresent Al Bierbaum, CommissionerPresent Absent Tushar Desai,Commissioner Absent John Donofrio, Commissioner Larry Durand, CommissionerPresent Lorraine Fischer, ChairpersonPresent Allan Ige, CommissionerPresent Bill Kempe, CommissionerPresent Dale Trippler, CommissionerPresent Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner 3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA Staff requested 6.b. Postponing elections of Chair and Vice Chairuntil June 18, 2013, due to two commission members being absent. And 10.a. Discussion of whether there will be a quorum for the July 2, 2013, planning commission meeting with that beingthe week of the fourth of July and 10.b. A Discussion regarding receiving an electronic planning commission packet verses the paper packets the commission currently receives. CommissionerTripplermoved to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by CommissionerArbuckle.Ayes –All The motion passed. 4.APPROVALOF MINUTES CommissionerBierbaummoved to approve theMay 21,2013, PCminutes as submitted. Seconded by CommissionerIge.Ayes –Chairperson Fischer, Commissioner’s Arbuckle, Bierbaum, Durand, Ige, & Kempe Abstention –Commissioner Trippler The motion passed. June 4, 2013 1 Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes 5.PUBLIC HEARING None. 6.NEW BUSINESS a.Consideration of Commercial vs. Residential Land Use and Zoning for Van Dyke Street Properties i.Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report on commercial vs. residential land use and zoning for Van Dyke Street properties. In summary the planning commission does not support a plan amendment and rezoning to commercial without a specific development plan to consider. Then it would depend on elements such as traffic impact, traffic flow, screening from residential neighbors and compatibility with neighbors. 1.There was concern that the roundabout, with one lane, would not accommodate turns into the city lot very easily. They felt that if it could be widened to have two lanes, it would be less encumbering for a car to turn into the site since it would allow a following-car to pass by on the inside.Staff stated they weresure the roundabout was designed to meet proper standards for traffic management. 2.Thecommissionfelt that if the city lot was combined with the lot to the south as one buildable parcel, then access may be best to come from the undeveloped street south of that lot. This would takethetraffic burden away from Van Dyke Street, at least for the conflict of turns in and out of these lots. 3.Thecommission wasnot very comfortable in re-guiding and rezoning this without a specific development proposal. Thecommissiondid not feel that establishing these as commercial properties was wise since then any BC use could go in which may not be appropriate in this area that has residential neighbors. 4.Thecommissionfelt some commercial uses would be acceptable, but not all. Less intensive uses like a neighborhood coffee shop or sandwich shop may be ok. The example of acar wash was a definite “no”. 5.Thecommission’sviews were no different if the potential was for the city lot to be developed as commercial vs.residentialif the city lot was combined with the lot to the south. Basically, they did not like a change to BC without a specific plan to consider. That, in fact, has been the city’s attitude for such changes –it has not been considered to be a good idea to change a zoning unless we know “for what use.” A student that was in attendance, Jessica Boujae, shared comments regardingthe Van Dyke street properties. b.Election of Chair and Vice Chair (no report) The election of Chair and Vice Chair is postponed until June 18, 2013. 7.UNFINISHEDBUSINESS None. June 4, 2013 2 Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes 8.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. 9.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a.Commissioner Kempe will be the Planning Commission representation for the June 10, 2013 city council meeting. The items scheduled for review are the conditional use permit revision for the First Evangelical Free Churchandthe Resolution of Appreciation forStephen Wensman. 10.STAFFPRESENTATIONS a.Discussion of whether there will be a quorum for the July 2, 2013, planning commission meeting with that being the week of the fourth of July.Most commission members said they would be available for the meeting but staff will check back at the next planning commission meeting. b.Discussion regarding receiving an electronic planning commission packet verses the paper packets the commission currently receives. Staff asked how the commission felt about receiving an electronic packet verses a paper packet. Commission members felt they either had to print the packet and use their own paper at home or the city continues to print the packetand pay postage to mail the packets. Either way it doesn’t save paper in the end.The commission asked how they would view attachments or booklets provided by the applicantif they received the electronic version of the planning commission packet. 11.ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Fischer adjourned the meeting at 7:40p.m. June 4, 2013 3 Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes MEMORANDUM TO:James Antonen, City Manager FROM:Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT:Approve a Resolution for a Conditional Use Permit Revisionfor a Planned Unit Development and Design Review for the Proposed Harmony Learning CenterGreenhouse LOCATION:1961 County Road CEast VOTE REQUIRED:Simple Majority Vote Required to Approve DATE:June 11,2013 INTRODUCTION Independent School District 622 is requesting approval of a conditional use permit revision for their planned unit development (PUD) to construct a greenhouseat the Harmony Learning Center. The applicant is proposing to build a 21-footby 36-foot greenhouse on the north side of their building adjacentto the existing garden. The school district has a program for teaching gardening and horticulture skills at Harmony.Their Community Garden Education programservesas an“experimental learning program providing hands on learning to 622’s students: a) immigrant and refugee studentsb)alternative learning center students.” The greenhouse would be provided in association with Century College to augment the gardening program. Refer to the applicant’s letter and the attached maps. Requests City ordinance requires a conditional use permit for schools. Expansions of facilities with an existing CUP must also obtain a CUP revision from the city council. The applicant is requesting the following: Approval of a CUP revision of their PUD to construct the proposed greenhouse. Approval of site and building design plans. BACKGROUND November 6, 1985: The city council approved a PUD for the HarmonySchool site for a proposed 116-unit senior housing development. This approval included a parking variance. This development was not built, butthe PUD approval remained. Refer to the attached PUD approval dated 11/6/85and the site plan for that project. Since 1985, the school has gone through various changes. Most recently, the addition of a T-Mobile cell phone tower was installed in the parking lot area east of the school. This tower was approved by the city council on December 14, 2009. DISCUSSION 1985 Senior Housing PUDApproval Staff recommends that the city council amend the PUDto delete all references to the 1985 approval forsenior’s housing. This project was never built and the approval is no longer relevant. Staff proposes to combine the CUP granted for the T-Mobile tower into anamended PUD resolution. This amended resolution would also acknowledge that the school district’s educational function is permitted by this approval, since that was never addressed. CUP/PUDRevision The zoning ordinance requires that the city council determine that all nine “standards” for CUP approval be met to allow a CUP. In short, these state that the use would: Comply with the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning code. Maintain the existing or planned character of the neighborhood. Not depreciate property values. Not cause any disturbance or nuisance. Not cause excessive traffic. Be served by adequate public facilities and police/fire protection. Not create excessive additional costs for public services. Maximize and preserve the site’s natural and scenic features. Not cause adverse environmental effects. The proposed greenhouse would meet those criteria. Wetland Setback Requirement There is a Manage B wetland north of the proposed greenhouse and garden area. This wetland is protected from intrusion by a fence, but city code requires a 75-foot, non-encroachment buffer around it. Thecat tails surrounding this wetland delineate the edge of the wetland and are 25to 30 feet south of the fence. The applicant would need to be sure to install the greenhouse at least 75 feet from the cat tails in order to satisfy the 75-foot buffer requirement. Staff feels that this can be accomplishedand the city council should require thissetback be met as a condition of the CUP. Design Review The proposed greenhouse is of a basic greenhouse design. Staff does not have any concern with its appearance since it is located between the school and a wooded wetland. It would be visible from White Bear Avenue, but, there are some trees on this side that would provide a little screening. Staff does not recommend additional treessince they could eventuallyshade the proposed greenhouseandsun light is needed for growing plants within. 2 The only other proposed site revision is the extension of the chain link fence to the west to contain the proposed greenhouse. Refer to the site plan. Staff has no concern with that. Assistant Fire Chief and Building Official Comments The applicant must meet applicable codes. Engineer’s Report Jon Jarosch, staff engineer with the city, stated: Depending upon the level of earthwork necessary to grade the area level and install footings, a grading and erosion control permit may be necessary. The applicant shall submit plans detailing any grading or footing work for review prior to commencing with the greenhouse construction. The applicant shall comply with any requirements generated by the review or grading and erosion control permit. RECOMMENDATION A.Adopt the resolution amending the conditional use permitfor a planned unit development for the Harmony Learning Center, located at 1695 County Road C East,to allow the construction of a greenhouse.This resolution deletes the 1985PUD approvalfor senior housing,which was never built, andincorporates the more recent CUPapproval for the T-Mobile cell phone tower (deletions are crossed out and additions are underlined.) Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Maplewood City Council that a conditional use permit be granted for the Harmony School site planned unit development, including the following variances: 1.Allow 79 parking spaces for the 52-unit senior’s residence, rather than the 104 required by code. 2.Allow 26 enclosed parking spaces rather than the 52 enclosed spaces required by the code. Approval of the conditional use permit and variances is subject to: 1.If council determines that there is insufficient on-site parking for the 52-unit seniors residence, within one year of 95% occupancy, additional parking may be required. 2.Maplewood and North St. Paul shall have continued use of the athletic facilities in the northeast portion of the site until that part of the site develops, provided the use of these facilities do not interfere with the applicant’s use of the property. 3.The 52-unit seniors residence shall not be converted shall to non-seniors housing without revision of the planned unit development. For purposes of this permit, senior’s housing is defined as a residence occupied by persons in their retirement years with a significant number of one-person households. 3 4.The auditorium attached to the 52-unit senior’s residence shall only be used by the residents of that building. Public assembly unrelated to senior use would be prohibited without a revision of this permit. 5.The commercial portion of the development shall be limited to the uses allowed in the BC(M), business commercial (modified) zoning district. 6.The eight parking spaces (marked “future”) located south of the driveway to the garage for the 64-structure shall be constructed. 7.The proposed 575 square foot units in the 52-unit residence (October 8, 1985 plans) shall be increased in area to at least 580 square feet of habitable floor area. 8.Move the 64-unit residence to the west to comply with the required minimum setback of 50 feet. 9.Adherence to the site plan dated October 8, 1985, except as required in these conditions, unless a change is approved by the community design review board. 1.All construction shall follow the site plans approved by the city. The community development staff may approve minor changes. 2.The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval of the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3.The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4.This conditional use permit is conditioned upon T-Mobile allowing the co-location of other provider’s telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower. T-Mobile shall submit a letter to staff allowing co-location before a building permit can be issued. 5.If any required landscaping for the T-Mobile towerdies, plantings must be replaced pursuantto the city policy and standards. 6.The school district shall provide a site plan with their building permit submittal that verifies that the proposed greenhouse would be placed no closer than 75 feet to the wetland to the north. For the purposes of defining the edge of the wetland, that shall be considered to be the edge of the cat tails. 7.This approval acknowledges that the school district’s educational activities are permitted by this permit. Any new construction or exterior improvements are subject to compliance with the design-review requirements in the city code, and perhaps, may require amendment of this conditional use permit. 4 B.Approve the design plansdate-stamped May 21, 2013for the greenhouse at Harmony Learning Center, 1695 County RoadC East, subject to the following conditions: 1.The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the building official and assistant fire chief. 2.The applicant shall submit plans detailing any grading or footing work for review prior to commencing with the greenhouse constructionto the city engineer.The applicant shall comply with any requirements generated by the review or grading and erosion control permit. 3.The applicant shall provide a site plan with their building permit submittal that verifies that the proposed greenhouse would be placed no closer than 75 feet to the wetland to the north. For the purposes of defining the edge of the wetland, that shall be considered to be the edge of the cat tails. 5 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 8.52 acres Existing land use: Harmony Learning Center SURROUNDING LAND USES North:Kohlman Creek County Open Space East:Single Family Home South: Single Family Homes, vacant lots and commercial buildings West: White Bear Avenue, commercial buildings and a church PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: G(government) Zoning: PUD CODE REQUIREMENTS Section 44-1092(3)of the city ordinances requires a CUP for schools. Findings for CUP Approval Section 44-1097(a) requires that the city council base approval of a CUP on nine findings. Refer to the findings for approval in the resolution. APPLICATION DATE The applicationfor this request was considered complete on May 21, 2013.State law requires that the city decide on theseapplications within 60 days. The deadline for city council action on this proposal is July20, 2013. 6 p:sec2S\Harmony School CUP Revision for Greenhouse PC Report 613 te Attachments: 1.CUP Revision Resolution 2.Location/ZoningMap 3.Land Use Plan Map 4.Site Plan date-stamped May 21, 2013 5.Applicant’s Narrativedated April 30, 2013 6.Greenhouse plans date-stamped May 21, 2013 7.November 6, 1985Senior’s Housing DevelopmentProposalat Harmony School 7 Attachment 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Independent School District 622, applied for a conditional use permit to amend the planned unit development for the Harmony Learning Center, to install a 21-foot by 36-foot greenhouse. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 1961 County Road C East. The legal description is: That part of the Southwest ¼ of Section 2, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County. More particularly described as: Beginning at the intersection of White Bear Avenue and the South link of Said Southwest 1/4; thence northerly on said center line 420.55 feet; thence east parallel with said South line 311 feet; thence northerly parallel with said center line 140 feet; thence north 107.07 feet, thence east 391.55 feet to a point 658.95 feet north of said South line; thence to said South line at a point 200 feet west of said ¼ corner; then West to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1.On June 18, 2013, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that this CUP amendment be __________. 2.On _____________. 2013, the city council discussed the proposed conditional use permit amendment. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council ____________the above- described conditional use permit revision, because: 1.The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2.The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3.The use would not depreciate property values. 4.The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5.The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6.The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 8 7.The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8.The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9.The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.All construction shall follow the site plans approved by the city. The community development staff may approve minor changes. 2.The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval of the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3.The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4.This conditional use permit is conditioned upon T-Mobile allowing the co-location of other provider’s telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower. T-Mobile shall submit a letter to staff allowing co-location before a building permit can be issued. 5.If any required landscaping for the T-Mobile towerdies, plantings must be replaced pursuant to the city policy and standards. 6.The school district shall provide a site plan with their building permit submittal that verifies that the proposed greenhouse would be placed no closer than 75 feet to the wetland to the north. For the purposes of defining the edge of the wetland, that shall be considered to be the edge of the cat tails. 7.This approval acknowledges that the school district’s educational activities are permitted by this permit. Any new construction or exterior improvements are subject to compliance with the design-review requirements in the city code, and perhaps, may require amendment of this conditional use permit. The Maplewood City Council _________ this resolution on _______, 2013. 9 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Attachment 6 Attachment 7 AGENDA REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Gayle Bauman, Finance Director CharlesAhl, AssistantCity Manager SUBJECT:2014-2018 CIP Plan Review and Debt Analysis DATE: June 7, 2013 workshop INTRODUCTION The Capital Improvement Plan is an annually prepared document that coordinates the planning, financing and timing of major equipment purchases and construction projects. The 2014-2018 CIP document has been released for review by the various Commissions and a Public Hearing on the CIP will be held at the Planning Commission meeting in June. As part of our paperless efforts, a copy of the CIP is available in electronic format on the City’s webpage. A Public Hearing has been called for 7:00 pm and is on thePlanning Commission agenda to allow thePlanningCommission to review the draft CIP as proposed by the staffand discuss ourproposeddebt levels.Afinding by the Planning Commission on the CIPthat “…the proposed CIP is consistent with implementing thegoals of the Comprehensive Plan.”is recommended. Following the receipt of recommendations from all the Commissions, the City Council will be asked to adopt the CIP in July 2013. Adopting the CIP does not commit the council to the proposed projects, norimplement the assumptions made during the preparation; however, this is the basis for the 2014 Budget as we proceed with its preparation. There is a fairly significant decrease in the cost of projects included in the 2014-2018 CIP compared to previous years. The proposed 2014-2018 CIP contains $46.7 million in expenditures while the 2013-2017 CIP contained $67.7 million. The two main reasons for this decrease are1) the once-in-a-decade interchange improvement at TH36-English was included in the 2013-2017 CIP at a cost of $16.2 million and it is not included in the 2014-2018 CIP; and 2) the City’s shift in focus from an accelerated streets program to controlling our debt levels. Debt Analysis Beginning in 2007, the City made a conscious decision to takeadvantage of the favorable construction market and expand its street repair/reconstruction program. Some of the outcomesof this decision are: Many of the badly deteriorated streets in the City were repaired and/or improved. Projects were completed at a lower cost than originally anticipated. More projects could be completed because of the lower costs. Our outstanding debt amount has increased. Two of the internal policiesthe City hasregarding debtservicefund balances and debt leviesare: 1.The ratio ofdebt service fund levies combined with capital expenditure levies to total levies shall be targeted to maintain a level in the range of 15-25%. This policy will help to ensure that the city is always maintaining its infrastructure, either through use of debt or current funding. 2.The City’s fund balance in the Debt Service fund shall be at a minimum level of 50% of annual debt service expenditures. Because the majority of annual debt service is paid on February 1 and August 1 of each year, funds must be onhand for payment of February 1 debt service. With the expansion of the streets program, the City is currently exceeding the targeted level of 15-25% for its debt/capital levy. For 2013, the ratio of debt service fund levies combined with capital expenditure levies to total levies was 26.7%. The proposed CIP includes an increase in the debt/capital levy of $105,070broken down as follows: FUND2013 LEVY2014 LEVY Debt Service4,313,5304,658,600 Capital Improvement Projects180,000180,000 Fire TruckReplacement50,00050,000 Park Development30,00030,000 Public Safety Expansion260,0000 Redevelopment20,00040,000 Economic Development Authority89,27089,270 TOTAL DEBT/CAPITAL LEVY4,942,8005,047,870 Exceeding our target in this case does not have a negative impact on the Cityas long as it doesn’t continue indefinitely. The City consciously made a decision to put more funding toward infrastructure and staff hasbeen able to maintain its operations side. This was accomplished by implementing many different strategiessuch as: Early retirement program Not filling or eliminating vacant positions No COLA increases Deferring projects and/or purchases Deferring repair and maintenance items Changes to health insurance By managing our street projects through the CIP process, we currently anticipate that there will be no bonding requirement for street projects in 2015 and debt service requirements will begin to decrease in 2016. This will eventually bring our debt/capital levy back in line with our internal policy.The history of the debt/capital levy to total levy is as follows: 2007200820092010201120122013 20.2%22.0%20.9%21.7%22.6%25.8%26.7% Based on projections for the Debt Service funds, it appears the City will not be able to maintain a minimum level fund balance in the debt service funds of 50% of annual debt service expenditures for a few years starting around 2016,without a significant increase in the debt levy. While the debt service funds will continue to have a positive total fund balance at the end of each year, there would not be sufficient funds on hand at stst February 1and August 1to make the required debt service payment. What this means is that the debt service funds would temporarily borrow money from the General Fund and pay interest expense on these borrowings. This would continue for a few years until someof our bond issues are paid in full and drop offthe City’s payment schedule. Though this is not an ideal situation, staff does understand that going against the policy in the short term is a better alternative than havingalarge levy increase to avoid the drop in fund balance. Also, new legislation was passed this session which should bring in an additional $530,000 in Local Government Aid and potentially another $300,000 due to the return of the sales tax exemption for cities and counties.The City would look at utilizing these funds to manage our debt levels in the short term.Based on current information,the following table shows the projected year end fund balance for the debt services funds for 2014-2018: 20142015201620172018 YE Fund Balance$6,897,820$4,672,360$3,201,030$2,022,020$1,238,100 % of debt service costs64%46%32%21%13% % of debt service costs w/ 69%56%49%42%42% LGA funds($530,000/yr) CIP Summary A copy of the draft 2014-2018 Capital Improvement Plan has been distributed and can be found on the City’s website at www.ci.maplewood.mn.us. The Transmittal Letter highlights the major projects within the Plan for consideration. The document explains each of the proposed projects, as well as analyzes the impacts on the budget for the various funds, along with the tax impact necessary to implement these projects as proposed. The staff submits projects based upon goals set at the Council/Management Team retreats. The finance staff analyzes the funds available for capital projects along with the impacts of the staff proposals. A number of revisions are made in the project submittals based upon the analysis of finance, aswell as management priorities to achieve the attached CIP plan. The attachedtable shows the changes that were made to the original requests based on the City’s financial means and meetings with the various department heads. Planning Commission Consideration There are a couple of programs that are important to consider for thePlanning Commission to make their finding during the 5-year planning period covered by this CIP as follows: 1.Housing Replacement Program: a.Proposes $100,000 in 2014, again in 2016 and again in 2018. b.The proposal is that the HEDC develop a program for housing rehabilitation or improvement on an every other year basis. c.This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals for reinvestment into the City’s housing stock. 2.Commercial Property Redevelopment a.Proposes expenditures of $2,500,000 over the 5-year period. b.Revenue from this program comes from the sale of property that has been purchased and redeveloped [$1,800,000 is estimated], plus the annual levy of $89,270. c.The proposal is that the HEDC will be involved in the purchase of redevelopment properties, improve the property and then resell the property for increased tax base. The HEDC would make recommendations to the Economic Development Authority. d.This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals for business retention and expansion. 3.Replacement of Fire Station and Public Safety Training Facility a.Proposes $10,750,000 of expenditures over the 5-year period. b.The proposal calls for a new fire station on the 3M Campus and upgrades to the Hazelwood and Gladstone stations while abandoning the stations on Londin Lane, Century Avenue and McMenemy Street in an effort to consolidate service for overall operational cost savings, while improving response times. c.This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by maintaining an effective and cost-efficient Public Safety services. 4.Park System Investments a.Proposes $7,428,000, including Prior Year investments into the Park System for upgrades and replacements. b.This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by maintaining an effective and quality Park and Open Space system. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that thePlanning Commission review the projects within the 2014- 2018 Capital Improvement Planand makea finding to the City Council that the2014- 2018 Capital Improvement Plan is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Note: EachCommission may haveappointeda representative to deliver their recommendationon the CIPto the Planning Commission. Thefinding of Consistency th with the Comprehensive Planneeds to delivered the City Council on July 8;a representativeshoulddeliver the PC recommendationthat evening. Draft 2014 – 2018 CIP Review by ENR Commission on May 20, 2013 1.East Metro Fire Training Facility – Don’t other cities that are in the joint powers agreement help pay for this facility? 2.Park Systems Plan – What does it mean to explore a referendum for a sustainable park system? 3.Pond Clean Out/Dredging Projects – Where will all the sediment go and how will it be treated? 4.Street Improvements – Will all of our future street improvements follow the Living Street’s policy?